Participatory Action Research (PAR) in cultural sensitivity and indigenous wisdom:Land Boundary Conflict in Two Indigenous Communities, Ratanakiri

1. Participatory Action Research (PAR)
in cultural sensitivity and indigenous wisdom:
Land Boundary Conflict in Two Indigenous Communities, Ratanakiri
Regional Land Forum
“Bringing Land Governance into ASEAN economic integration”
Venue: Centre for Women’s Development, 20 Thuy Khue, Tay Ho, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Presented by Keo Bora
Analyzing Development Issues Centre (ADIC)

2. Contexts
 Development policies spurred changes over the past decade positively and
negatively on local communities.
 On a positive side: better road networks, market integration, material
consumption, etc.
 On the negative side:
• Land conflict as a result of ownership claims, opportunity for land grabbing
• ELCs have taken over large tracks of indigenous land for growing palm oil,
coffee and cashew nuts. In the early 2000s they started planting rubber
and teak, and engaged in gem mining.

3. Indigenous Governance System
 Traditional customary law practiced is based on consensus. “Adhoc tribunals” can be
established in a community, and the process may be flexible and actors may depend
on a case by case basis.
 Allowing communities to manage their internal affairs including the management of
their land and forest areas would be a sustainable solution.
 In recognizing traditional law and governance, it opens up opportunity to protect
existing justice which strengthens solidarity and friendship, and in turn strengthens
their culture, identity and confidence to deal with their own problems.
 The informal cooperation also occurs between the local level state and traditional
authorities. For example, cases are brought to different level of government
structure ranging from village level and upwards.
Source: Jeremy Ironside (2010), The Outbreak of Peace: Communal Land Management and Traditional Governance in
a Remote Cambodian Province

4. Focus of PAR Approach and Objective
 Land boundary conflict between two villages of Peak in
Yatung commune and Plong in Pater commune, Oyadav
district, Ratanakiri Province emerged since 2007 when land
price increased.
 Engaging and mobilizing communities to deal with this issue
by themselves.

5.  PAR proceeds with repeated cycles.
 Start with identification of major issues, concerns, and problems, initiate research,
originate action, learn about this action and proceed to new research and action
cycle.
 Co-researcher is the community members

6. Participatory Action Research (PAR) in practice
- Since January 2013, the ADIC staff stay
in the community permanently and
learning from them through listening
their story/issue and observation.
- Go to the flow of community (Existing
activities, community schedule and
agenda, go to everywhere they are
doing)
- Critical thinking and analysis through
asking questions (Social Investigation)

7. Target Areas and People We Work With
 23 indigenous ethnicities in Cambodia, and belong to 455 communities in
13 of all provinces.
 Ratanakiri provinces, about 179,000 or about 1.34 per cent of the
national population.
 Indigenous communities are culturally connected to their land and
depend on it for their livelihoods. The areas are attractive to economic
land concessions.
 ADIC focused an effort in Peak village of Yatung & Plong village
of Pater, Oyadav district, Ratanakiri.

8. History of the Conflict
 Peak and Plong village is next to each other
in different commune.
 For a long time they have never had the
conflict but strong solidarity as they are
from the same tribe, Jarai
 They have made their living through shifting
cultivation and depend on NTFPs. Land and
forest were used together regardless of
boundary.

9. History of the Conflict
The solidarity of these villages was broken due to the
conflict happened since 2000.
 It was required to have commune administrative
boundary with clear pole mark for management.
 The price of land increased
 Market integration - the people started to compete
instead of interested in common benefit and
solidarity.

10. Reflect on the Previous Action
 ADIC started to work in that area since 2013 and collaborated with
Indigenous Community Support Organization (ICSO) focusing communal
land titling (CLT) but it has not moved forward because of pending
conflict
 In 2013, representatives from the two villages negotiated many times
but were not successful:
 Lack of facilitation during community negotiation (from different tribe)
 The people were not ready for negotiation
 The negotiation team members were not the right representative
 Anger burst out and the situation of the conflict deteriorated

11. Reflect on the Previous Action (Con’t)
 Staff did not well understand about these both parties, eg. Seeing
their silence but not agree
 Pushing without being aware of the limit ability and capacity of
stakeholders to facilitate and decide
 The field staff of both NGOs were not from the same tribe of the
community, make different interpretation, miscommunication
 They work with and work separately by the target zone.

12. New Strategy and Process
 In the mid of 2014, ADIC changed its
approach, having new Jarai staff with the
same tribe
 Stayed permanently in these both villages,
building relationship and trust.
 Learn and went in-depth into this issue,
understand the whole story as the chronic
issue
 Collaborated with other NGOs working in that
Community

13. New Strategy and process… (con’t)
 Going by the flow of the community life (agenda,
objective, schedule)
 Assist and facilitate the community to reach
solutions for the emerging issue
 Discuss and analysis on the root-cause of the issue
and real needs, mapping out the stakeholders,
potential person
 Meet one by one of all the mapped stakeholders
.

14. The Findings from meeting discussion
 The concern and clues from stakeholders
 The type of conflict was like a psychology issue (the relatives or
siblings)
 These two villages already have the elders and the committee of
the land management.
 The important role of elders to keep the village in peace and
solidarity is often replaced by the political structure and was
forgotten by outsiders
 The affected families showed good wills for solution and they
ready to make concession.
 The local authority ready to facilitate when the community agree
to go to the table of negotiation.

15. The Results from the Actions
 Many times of meetings at village, commune,
and district level
 On May 7-8, 2015, the official meeting at the
district office, with the evidences and
witness, yielded a successful output.
 Tensions during the negotiate were reduce by
the skilful Jarai facilitator through different
time with both to discuss about potential
options.

16. After the Solution
 The agreement was done in paper but
the ground work of boundary pole
demarcation is somewhat initially
problematic.
 Facilitate these two villages to
identify their own areas of land,
concession to each other and flexible
adjustment on commune map for
GPS position
 The conflict resolution of this has
domino effect, other village boundary
issues in the communes was also
resolved after that.

17. Conclusion
 The boundary conflict was finally resolved only
after the trust have been built, constant informal
engagement and discussion, using the same
dialect of indigenous Jarai.
 Well understand the community’s perceptions,
community based strategy, influential people,
right people of the conflict
 The concession toward each other when they
realized that the unity amongst their tribal groups
could bring synergistic impact on another bigger
issue of corporate mining at hand

18. Lesson Learned
 Learning by doing process, then make
adjustment and having new strategy is key
in PAR.
 PAR approach, moving away from the
conventional way or extractive research
process to following the daily activities or
lives of people.
 PAR with high sensitivity to local culture,
take off all the pressures of time and
demand for participation, the natural flow of
community interaction and thoughts
Community invite
(Focus on
their agenda)
NGO invites
(Focus on
our agenda)

19. Thanks for your attention!
